The Gandhi Way

Jeremy Corbyn receiving the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award 2013

Newsletter of the Gandhi FoundationNo.119 Spring 2014 ISSN 1462-9674 £1

1

2

Gandhi Foundation AGMSaturday 24 May 2014

Kingsley Hall, Powis Road, Bromley-By-Bow, London E3 3HJThe AGM will be am and a talk or workshop pm

Further details later

Gandhi Foundation Summer Gathering 201430th anniversary year

Gandhian Approaches to Learning and SkillsA week of exploring community, nonviolence and creativity through sharing

Saturday 26 July - Saturday 2 AugustThe Abbey, Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire OX14 4AF

The easiest way to apply is by email — please request an application form by emailing

gandhisummergathering@gmail.com or from The Organisers Summer Gathering,

2 Vale Court, Weybridge KT13 9NNTel: 01932 841135

Contents Prospects for Peace Jeremy Corbyn

Taxes for Peace Not War – Conscience

Youth Faith Groups & Nuclear Disarmament

Green Cross Awards, Geneva Diana Schumacher

A Gandhi Alphabet (part II) G Paxton & A Copley

Book Review: M K Gandhi: Attorney at Law Twisha Chandra

Multifaith Celebration 2013 Graham Davey

Prospects for Peace2013 Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award

The following are extracts from the acceptance speech by Jeremy Corbyn MP.The full speech is on the GF website.

Gandhi saw India as a place where you had to respect all faiths and all religions and then of course he was tragically and cruelly assassinated in 1948. His power and his legacy live on and there are enormous lessons we can all learn from his life. I think, as people go through life now and go on into this century to become more and more challenged by a) the obvious limits of consumerism on the planet, and b) the rush and thirst for war, amongst those that either manufacture arms or those who gain from the manufacture of arms or those who seek to gain from the minerals exploited because of conquests and so on, and there are some very strong lessons to learn from that, but also from the growth of a huge peace movement around the world. I’ll come back to this in a moment but think for a moment of the significance in 2003 of there being a worldwide demonstration against the war in Iraq. There was a demonstration in every major city (600 cities around the world) on every continent including Antarctica. It didn’t stop the Iraq War but it certainly awakened an awful lot of people to the need for a degree of unity to prevent a war taking place. I’ll come back to that as there are a few other things I want to say on that.

Next year we’re going to be commemorating the First World War. David Cameron rather incautiously at one stage, called it some kind of celebration, which he then dropped, but it should not be a celebration of any sort. It should be a commemoration, and we should learn the lessons from it. Notably, the way in which interlocking empires were in rivalry with each other over colonial possessions, in rivalry with each other over commercial gains and possibilities, and ended up going to war because of a knock-on series of interlocking military alliances in 1914.

This was envisaged many years before by a man called J L Hobson who wrote a very interesting book on the analysis of imperialism in 1902 in which he predicted that within ten years there would be a European conflict of massive proportions. He was two years out with his date, but beyond that he was absolutely correct in his predictions.

World War I was not universally supported at the beginning. I was brought up with a history teacher who told us that the whole country rushed out onto the streets in August 1914 to celebrate the war and were very pleased it had started and were waving flags. Yes there were people out waving flags, and some who were motivated by jingoistic mentality, but there were many who opposed it.

3

Bruce Kent and I will be organising an event next year in Finsbury Park to recreate a massive public meeting that took place in my constituency the day after war was declared, and at it they unanimously passed a resolution they were opposed to the war because they had no problem with Germans or German workers and didn’t want to go and kill them. They wanted their housing, health and education issues solved, and didn’t want their resources taken up with war. The anti war movement carried on for quite a long time and even in 1915 there was a women’s conference for peace held in The Hague which, whilst it obviously didn’t stop the war or the killing, the fact they managed to get together to have the conference did have some influence on President Woodrow Wilson and the 14 points that later came out at the end of the war.

Those who died in the war, what did they die for ? They died a horrible death in a terrible situation in ghastly conflict. Many more died afterwards from other illnesses, and many committed suicide, and even more died as a result of a flu epidemic at the end of the war. It was a disaster for millions of people all over the world but what it did was it created a massive industrial killing machine. It was industrial level warfare, the like of which had never been seen.

It started with cavalry and horses and ended with planes and massive bombs and huge war ships which then went on to become part of a war machine much later on....

Graham Davey (GF Treasurer), Jeremy Corbyn, Bruce Kent

4

...... There is no such thing as a contained or limited nuclear explosion or war.

....... We have a series of treaties regarding the development of even greater weapons of massive destruction than there’s ever been before with the Test Ban Treaty, the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which of themselves are all very important steps forward but again, the flaws that exist within them have to be understood and dealt with. Nonetheless, the opportunities for a long term nuclear peace are very present. For a moment, let’s reflect on the current situation we’re in.

We have been in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, in Libya, Mali, and then came the question of Syria.

Now I’ve been in every parliamentary debate for the past 30 years on wars/interventions, nuclear weapons and the like, and the debate that was held at the end of August on the possibility of Britain and the USA going to war in Syria was fascinating because the spectre that was going around the chamber all day consisted of people who had voted for the Iraq War in 2003 and personally and bitterly regretted it ever since, feeling shame and guilt for the conflict that took place. Ultimately, never mind the exact wording of the resolution, the Prime Minister was seeking British parliamentary support for military intervention, that was in the end refused on a vote of the House of Commons. That was utterly extraordinary and I can find no similar episode in British history. I like to think it is a turning point in our relations and attitude to the rest of the world. I sincerely hope it is but nothing is certain in these matters.

Think through what might have happened, had we, Britain and the USA gone into Syria at the end of August; planes would have gone in, drones would have gone in, bombing would have taken place, arms would have been supplied to one set of opposition and not the other. Russia would have increased its supply of arms to the regime.

It doesn’t bear thinking about.

Suppose a Russian missile had shot down an American plane or the other way around, what then happens, where does it then go to ?

But, because the British Parliament said no, that meant the British Government could not take part, and although this wasn’t the only factor in US thinking, the US didn’t take part either, for a series of quite complex alliances, almost the mirror image of what Woodrow Wilson faced at the end of the First World War, ie his problem was US isolationists wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world and therefore opposed the League of Nations. This time, there was the combination of those opposed to war in the USA and the isolationists who didn’t want to get involved in another war in the USA. It was a strange series of circumstances and we didn’t go to war.

5

As a result, the US and Russia had to meet, and Iran had to be brought into the equation. Syria had to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and the elimination of chemical weapons stocks throughout Syria is taking place and now a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran which, though there are a lot of people analysing it in a lot of ways, I look at it in a very general way: It is a very significant step forward that Iran was prepared to come to an agreement with the EU, the US and others on limiting the enrichment of uranium and confirming that it will not manufacture any nuclear weapons.

I hope the details of the agreement over the next six months are successful, but I also hope that we build on that and have a nuclear weapons free zone conference, which must obviously include Israel, and must start from the standpoint of Israel decommissioning its nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapons zone in order to achieve a nuclear free weapons Middle East !

It might sound ‘pie in the sky’ but at one time people said these things were pie in the sky all over the world. We have a nuclear weapons free zone in central Asia, a Latin American nuclear free zone, an African nuclear free zone.

Surely our contribution in Britain should be not to spend £100bn on replacing the Trident nuclear system but instead say, we are going to join in the general surge around the world to get rid of nuclear weapons. North Korea is moving along similar lines to Iran.

Let us say, we are not going to replace the Trident nuclear system, instead, we’ll give those brilliant engineers and ship builders something useful to do for a peaceful use and not a warlike use.

That is a prize surely worth working for.

_____________________________________________________

GF News Congratulations, Gandhi !

Your content was among the top 2% of most viewed on SlideShare in 2013 !

In 2013 the Gandhi Foundation’s education slide show Gandhi: A Life in Pictures was in the top 2% of most viewed. Matthew Bain produced these slides (PDF or Powerpoint) about four years ago. In 2013 it had 25,289 views. You can see more detail here: http://www.slideshare.net/yearinreview/GandhiFoundation/zIzFAA

William Rhind, until recently a member of the GF Executive Committee, has been appointed as part-time Key Worker to the Foundation, initially for a 3 month period.

Two new members of the GF executive committee were appointed at the December meeting. They are Twisha Chandra and Prem Prakash.

6

Taxes for Peace Not War

conscience TAXES FOR PEACE NOT WAR, works for a world where taxes are used to nurture peace, not pay for war.

Peace Tax - beyond HypothecationHypothecation is the process of assigning tax revenues to a specific end. conscience advocates for an update in the law so that those with a conscientious objection to military taxation can have the part of their taxes that currently go towards war and the preparations for war go to other forms of security instead. We are not campaigning for a change in the amount spent on security and defence – we believe there are alternative and far more effective (and economical) ways of providing national security which do not require our taxes being used as a tool to fund killing. A common argument used against our proposal is that if conscientious objectors won the right to divert taxes away from military expenditure, a range of other groups and individuals would demand a similar right. For example to divert their taxes away from paying for state education, new roads or the NHS. Essentially, the floodgates would open to others calling for a similar right. However, the Peace Tax case is different to others for a number of reasons. The major difference being that the military intentionally kill and harm people as part of their role, no other area of government spending does so. Secondly, the desire not to contribute to state education, for example, or not to contribute to road building via taxes, is a political objection, not one based on conscience. There are very few areas where the claim of conscience is recognised in law. One is conscientious objection to military service, the right we are trying to extend to cope with the changed nature of warfare. Before capital punishment was abolished in the UK one also had the right to refuse to perform executions. Intentional killing holds because we are not talking about political objections but those driven by conscience that also have a legislative precedent (conscientious objection to military service was recognised by Parliament in 1916). Thirdly, there is parliamentary precedent from the 1916 Military Service Act. This Act introduced military conscription for the majority, but also recognised the rights of a minority to not to be complicit in killing thus establishing the right to conscientious objection. When conscientious objection was recognised in 1916, a form of ‘alternative service’ was available to conscientious objectors e.g. working for an ambulance service. That choice of alternative service is not available to present day conscientious objectors, who are required to pay for the military regardless of matters of conscience. We are asking for a new form of alternative service: one that allows conscientious objectors to pay the military part of their taxes to a non-military fund and thus providing a means by which conscientious objectors can contribute to security and safety in good conscience.

7

Finally, because Peace Tax provides for a conscientiously acceptable – and more effective and efficient – alternative it has no negative impact on the government’s job of providing security for the nation as a whole. Assuming we succeed with the update in the law, anyone aiming to use it as a precedent would have to follow a similar model i.e. they would have to provide a comparable alternative. Therefore, there would be no legal basis for withholding taxes or diverting them into an unrelated area.

Meet the Real Peacebuilders conscience also campaigns to showcase the work of nonviolent peacebuilders. With our “Meet the Real Peacebuilders” campaign we introduce people who work within conflict prevention and conflict transformation from across the globe to our supporters and the wider public. We also utilise these peacebuilders to show decision makers that there is a viable alternative to securing peace through non-military solutions as demonstrated by the peacebuilders around the world. It is these security measures we want our taxes to go towards. We specifically campaign for the development of the government’s inter-departmental Conflict Pool which funds peacebuilding activities. The Conflict Pool funds conflict prevention, stabilisation and peacekeeping activities to reduce the number of people around the world whose lives are affected by violent conflict. The Conflict Pool was established in 2009, and was primarily designed to prevent, manage, and resolve regional and international conflict, as well as to create conditions amenable to effective state building and economic development. The Conflict Pool was created in order to combine the skills of the Department of International Development (DfID), the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in order to construct a coherent and effective UK approach to conflict prevention. The Conflict Pool is not the Peace Tax Fund for which conscience has campaigned for, but it is the nearest that the UK Government has yet come to meeting our other campaign goal of a progressive increase in the amount of UK tax spent on peacebuilding, and a corresponding decrease in the amount spent on war and preparation for war. However the Conflict Pool does have its fair share of problems and we want to work towards rectifying these problems and increasing the amount of security spending that goes toward the Conflict Pool while decreasing the amount that goes towards the military. However, the Conflict Pool isn’t perfect. It is commonly used as a source of funds to cover any overspend on military peacekeeping operations. In addition, there is a frustrating lack of transparency with some of the projects that are funded by the pool and changes coming into force in 2015 may lead to the greater militarisation of the pool. We want the Conflict Pool to be used solely for non-military conflict prevention and peacebuilding projects. Therefore we’re calling on government

8

to make the Pool more transparent, stop using the Pool as an MoD slush fund, and put an immediate halt to any creeping militarisation of the Pool.

About Usconscience campaigns for a progressive increase in the amount of UK tax spent on conflict prevention and conflict transformation, and a corresponding decrease in the amount spent on war and the preparation for war. In addition, we advocate the use of non-military security solutions and provide information and resources to support the development of peacebuilding and conflict prevention methods – methods that are widely recognised to provide more effective and better value forms of security than military intervention. We also campaign for an update in the law, so that people with a conscientious objection to war can have the part of their taxes currently spent on war and its preparations spent on conflict prevention and conflict transformation instead. This is in recognition of the fact that although we no longer face military conscription in the UK, we continue to bear a moral responsibility for war through our taxation contribution to the Ministry of Defence.For more information please contact campaign@conscienceonline.org.uk or visit www.conscienceonline.org.uk

___________________________________________________________________________

Youth Faith Groups and Nuclear Disarmament

Leaders of 25 youth faith organizations – Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Zoroastrian – from all over Europe, member organizations of European Interfaith Youth Network (EIYN), met in Vienna in the end of November for 3 days of interfaith youth summit and training on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Young religious and interfaith leaders pledged multireligious cooperation for nuclear disarmament. The training took place in beautiful Am Spiegeln Seminar Center of Vienna, called “a venue of dialogue” .

EIYN’s summit is the key annual encounter for EIYN member organizations, to re-affirm commitment to the mission and vision of the EIYN, plan future activities and network’s development and advance multi-religious cooperation for peace. This year’s summit was dedicated to the topic of nuclear disarmament. Young religious leaders took part in a training on “Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons” led by trainer Martin Hinrichs from International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Germany. The training started off with an interactive space-game, with participants trying to guess numbers of nuclear warheads existing in the world, which got participants interested in

9

the topic. Most had no idea about the number of the nuclear warheads. Next, participants needed to guess what is a potential scale of destruction of one nuclear warhead.

The next part of the training was dedicated to talking about the history of this weapon, from its creation, usage, Hiroshima, Cold War, and modern times and about threat that those weapons pose to personal health, societies and the environment. After that, young interfaith leaders learned about numerous aspects of nuclear weapons: a) immediate effects of a 100kt nuclear bomb, shown on a map of Vienna, and then Central Europe. b) long-term effects, eg climate effects and implications for food security. Participants saw a model of limited war between India and Pakistan, showing what would be its effects. Next, maps of global cooling effects were presented, as well as maps of change in precipitation that would take place as a result of such “limited” war, and estimation of how many people would die as a result of starvation being a consequence of those changes. The following part of the training referred to a political discourse on nuclear weapons used by those who own those weapons, like for example the often heard statement, made by politicians : “these are political weapons ... they are not meant to be used” where such statements are very misleading. The

10

Summit’s participants learned about how owning nuclear weapons is considered a prestige in certain circles of people of power, and how global campaigners against nuclear weapons try to change this, from considering ownership of nukes as prestige to considering it globally as a stigma.

After a break, young leaders were introduced to the topic of campaigning and the global movement to ban nuclear weapons, by seeing a movie It takes courage to change the world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf-BBwhudLA&list=UUgBGY7NX3Ltb5pybHQZUzTw). The trainer inspired young religious leaders to join ICAN in campaigning for banning nuclear weapons, banning them with a special international treaty, similar to treaties that banned landmines in 1997 and cluster munitions in 2008. Later the participants learned about different world initiatives, projects implemented in a framework of global campaign for banning nuclear weapons, for example about initiatives trying to change political discourse on nuclear weapons, organizing protests, lobbying of governments, and working on creating a treaty on banning these weapons. The trainer said that global campaigners believe that discussions about nuclear weapons must focus on the humanitarian impact of those weapons, and not only on narrow concepts of national security and “deterrence”. The participants found out then, what the remaining challenges are, and they got to see a list of countries in the world that support a ban of nuclear weapons, countries that hesitate whether to support a ban or not, and countries that oppose the ban. Many of the summit’s participants were surprised to see that the country they come from opposes the ban.

The second part of the training was aimed at acquiring some practical skills necessary for campaign planning, and work in groups. Participants got divided into 6 groups and each of the group worked for two hours to prepare a plan for an advocacy campaign around nuclear weapons aimed at different groups, according to Tools for preparing a campaign presented by the trainer. After an hour, groups shared their work with all of the participants.

At the end of the training, EIYN’s Core Group (executive group) and Martin introduced EIYN’s members to Religions for Peace Resource Guide on Nuclear Disarmament, a resource guide for religious leaders and communities that was launched just a few days before our Summit in Vienna, during Religions for Peace World Assembly, and inspired young leaders and their organizations to use this resource guide. The guide can be downloaded from here: http://www.baselpeaceoffice.org/sites/default/files/imce/articles/News/rfp_resource-guide-nuclear-disarmament_v08_preview-pages.pdf

Representatives of different youth religious organizations present in Vienna discussed and planned future joint interfaith and disarmament activities for

11

year 2014, elected a new leadership group of the network and accepted new members to the network.

Religions for Peace, European Interfaith Youth Network (EIYN) is a platform of youth organizations from all religions present in Europe, advancing common action for peace. EIYN Network is composed of youth faith-based organizations (and in some cases religious communities) and non-religious organizations that facilitate inter-faith dialogue, operating on pan-European or national level in different countries of Europe.

Vienna 2013 EIYN Summit and Training was financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Religions for Peace, European Council of Religious Leaders, Religions for Peace International, Focolare Movement and The Gandhi Foundation.

EIYN’s website: http://disarmeurope.wordpress.com/Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rfp.eiynFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rfpeiyn

12

Green Cross Awards Geneva, September 2013

Diana Schumacher

An international event, much in the spirit of Gandhi took place at the United Nations in Geneva in September 2013. The Third Green Cross Awards were presented to unsung heroes of the environmental movement and hosted by the UN in the presence of Mr Gorbachev. After the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear tragedy Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the USSR, decided that he would commit the rest of his life’s energies to protecting and safeguarding the environment and to promoting humanitarian issues. In 1990 he called for a “Red Cross for the environment” and, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, Gorbachev was asked to found Green Cross International. The organisation was formally inaugurated in April 1993 with Mr Gorbachev its Founding President. 2013 marked the 20th Anniversary of this charity which has now taken root in over 30 countries around the world, and is increasingly becoming an influential, informed force on the global environmental scene. Over the last 20 years, Green Cross has actively supported such issues as the UN Right to Water and Sanitation, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Earth Charter and many other international humanitarian treaties and initiatives, as well as being involved with various local grass roots projects. Yet, as Gorbachev admits, there has still been no effective functioning mechanism to move from understanding the causes of environmental problems to actually solving them in the long-term. His analysis is that global politics has lagged behind the real processes taking place in the world, and politics alone is incapable of adequate responses to all the new environmental challenges. A fundamental new collective political leadership is now necessary in our current world situation. The United Nations needs to be strengthened and its performance improved. The second major problem is that the current model of economic development is not conducive to long-term sustainability. It breeds crisis, social injustice and environmental instability and we need to adopt a completely new model. We have to review the goals of economic development where consumption and growth are not the main drivers. Instead, growth should be seen as a tool to develop society in those places where this is needed. To quote Gorbachev, “My fear is we do not have another 20 years to wait before we make the drastic shifts needed to safeguard the future of humanity on this planet.

13

We have already outstretched the planet’s resources, but in 20 years’ time we will need almost the equivalent of three Earths to sustain the world’s ever-growing population.There is a growing understanding, and an increasing consensus, around the kind of world we want to live in. A global society that has moved beyond hunger and suppression to a world that manages to live off the resources that this finite planet, and humanity’s infinite ingenuity, can sustainably provide. What is needed is an equitable society that lives within its means and which is a lot better off and happier than it is today”. At the Geneva Symposium, Jan Kulczyck, Chairman of Green Cross International, urged the business community including shareholders and investors, to adopt radical policies ensuring long-term sustainability. This means a commitment to a “circular economic system” based on green growth which emulates the cyclical nature of ecosystems themselves, and which uses natural resources and production systems leading “eco-innovation”. He cited the Green Cross Environmental Education / Value Change Programme which in the last 20 years has helped thousands of children have access to education. The UN’s Right to Water and Sanitation is another vital campaign in which the charity has been actively involved and has provided millions with access to clean drinking water. Also with its support over 50,000 tons of chemical weapons have been safely destroyed.. In Kulczyck’s words:“Education, green economics, water management and energy security are the most important issues facing the world today……. Creating new patterns of consumption and production, a competitive energy sector and new educational programmes in developing countries must be our objectives” Alexander Likhotal, the Green Cross President, spoke of the need to cultivate a new sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility in humans’ relationship with nature – “The uphill battle called Green Cross has become my life.” He quoted Gandhi who, when asked how he had won the battle for independence, replied “It is easy. First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight, and then you win”. This also seems to be the case with Green Cross. Likhotal also spoke of the Green Cross Gandhian philosophy of “Co-operation not confrontation”, which applies to its active partnerships with governments as well as to its work in conflict mediation. Among a succession of actively engaged people speaking, or writing in the Commemorative Green Cross Publication, “Give Humanity a Chance, Give the Earth a Future”, was a moving message from Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp who addressed the young people and spoke of

14

never giving up hope in the seemingly impossible battle to safeguard the earth for one another and for the generations to come. “We know that together, assembling our lessons with your vision, your energy, your extraordinary ability to communicate, we will form a healthy, beautiful and bountiful community upon earth”.

There were six recipients of the 2013 Third Green Star Awards in recognition of their remarkable efforts to “prepare for, respond to or mainstream” actions to prevent environmental emergencies. Under the Prepare for Category, a joint award was made to Professor Nikola Nikolov (Macedonia), Sundar Prasad Sharma (Nepal) and Professor Sergiy Zibtsev (Ukraine) for their leadership and work to strengthen national capacities to respond to the humanitarian and environmental impacts of wildfires in their respective countries. A second Green Star Award went to The Kenya Red Cross Society for its efforts in disaster risk reduction, especially in the context of the September 2011 industrial accident, fuel spill and fire at the Mukura Sinai informal settlements in Nairobi. For Respond to, an award was given to Mayor Masahide Matsumoto of Katsurao Village, Japan for his exemplary leadership and preparedness in evacuating 1,600 residents to safety on 14th March 2011, the day before the second and third reactor explosions at the stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant, which subsequently covered his town in a thick cloud of radioactive dust. An award in this category also went to New York City’s Hurricane Sandy Debris Removal Task Force, for their outstanding and timely response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. The Task Force comprised over 25 City, State and Federal agencies working together to clean up the city in record time. Importantly, it focussed efforts on reusing and recycling much of the 2 million cubic yards of debris left behind by the hurricane in New York City.In the Mainstreaming Category, the world Wildlife Fund and American Red Cross were jointly recognised for their development of the Green Recovery and Reconstruction Toolkit (GRRT), following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, to ensure disaster recovery efforts are sustainable and do not have unintended negative effects on the environment. The final Green Star Award went to Sir David Attenborough, for his lifetime’s work on raising awareness on climate change and related environmental emergencies. Attenborough was acclaimed for sixty years of dedication to the environment, including making a wide variety of impressive documentary films, and publications such as the “State of the Planet” (2000), the “Truth about Climate Change” (2006), and “How

15

Many people can live on Planet Earth?” – all of which have informed millions of people of the pressures posed by humans on the environment.

Valerie Amos, UN under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, and the Emergency Relief Co-ordinator commented:-“The Green Star Awards recognise people who are on the front lines of preventing, preparing for and responding to environmental emergencies and helping people to reconstruct their lives after a devastating forest fire or Tsunami. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to people who work behind the scenes”. In other words, the Green Cross Awards also go to unsung heroes as with our own Gandhi Peace Awards. Unfortunately, women recipients were notably absent on this occasion also.

The Green Star presentations were followed by an outstanding talented concert by Peace Child International (a group of young people from all over the world) entitled “2050 The Future We Want”. The music had been written by David Gordon with contributions from his brother, the former singer Cat Stevens; and the production by David Woolcombe and his wife Rosey Simonds. (Founder / Directors of Peace Child International). The Geneva city community choir was joined by singers from Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus and 19 other countries. There were some brilliant dancers trained by a UK choreographer and 11 younger children gathered round Rosey Simonds, who was the Story Teller. On a screen was a poignant black and white film showing the stricken Chernobyl nuclear plant, and the devastated countryside where nothing can grow – houses, toys, machinery and clothes abandoned as people were hurriedly evacuated.

The energy, talent and professional creativity expressed by the young people of Peace Child (all under the age of 25) was astonishing given the fact that they came from over 20 different countries, often representing regions traditionally in conflict with one another. Especially remarkable was the fact that they had only been able to come together to work on the production for two weeks beforehand, although much individual rehearsing had been taking place in various scattered locations. The friendship and unity expressed across the ages and different cultures must surely give us all hope for the future. Plans are now going forward for this programme to become a major future educational project (please see www.peacechild.org).

Ω

16

Book Review

M K Gandhi: Attorney at Law Charles R DiSalvo University of

California Press 2013 ISBN 978 0 520 28015 1 HB pp350

Charles R. DiSalvo's book titled MK Gandhi, Attorney at Law: The Man before the Mahatma is the first biographical account dedicated to Gandhi' s life and experiences as a young lawyer. The book is based on exhaustive research. His journey is fascinating as one would have never imagined that a shy, timid person, so afraid to speak in front of an audience could ever be capable of leading a mass movement that involved teeming millions. When I first picked up the book, I thought to myself that I know enough about Gandhi and there is nothing more or new which the book can provide, but I was mistaken as we know very little about Gandhi the lawyer. Gandhi's education in Britain, subsequent enrolment at the Inner Temple has seldom been covered in any biography but the author in this book delves into the challenges young Gandhi faced as a law student. Gandhi took matriculation exams at University College London (UCL) as well as his studies for the bar. The author does mention the single minded dedication and determination with which Gandhi completed his studies. Gandhi returned to India in 1891 and from his feeble attempts to start a practice in Rajkot, Gujarat to his move to Mumbai (then Bombay) in search of more work, from his stand against employing touts to scout work for him, to his receiving a brief in the small causes court and then failing miserably as he was utterly dumbstruck in the court; all these events have been carefully covered with all minute details highlighting the important character traits that were already being shaped. In April 1893 Gandhi set forth to South Africa to render his services to Dada Abdullah Seth, a prominent businessman who had a large claim against another prominent businessman from Pretoria. There was no looking back from there for both Gandhi, the lawyer and Gandhi, the statesman. Though his client base primarily formed of wealthy merchants initially, his straightforward simplicity and zeal and love for truth attracted indentured labourers to him. They approached him with their grievances, and Gandhi slowly started waking up to the harsh reality of their painful situation. First among them was a Tamil speaking labourer called Balasundram, who was badly beaten by his master for a minor fault and when he walked into Gandhi's office bleeding and shivering, it made his heart melt.

17

The book captures all important milestones in terms of clients, decisions, methods and arguments employed and decisions granted. The controversies and bias surrounding a non-European attorney, his struggles and in the end the triumph of his will to succeed are evident in this touching tale. Though there is commonly nothing very emotional about the legal profession which is based on hard facts and evidence but since the man being written about here is extraordinary and the writer here is a Gandhian scholar and admirer, this makes all the difference. It is a must read for anybody interested not only in Gandhi but in understanding the legal system of that time and its implementation in a colonial setting in greater detail. Twisha Chandra

___________________________________________________________________

A Gandhi Alphabet (II)This is the second part of the Alphabet composed by George Paxton and Antony Copley

H The Hindu Right

On one of his visits to London to argue the case for the non-discrimination of Indians in South Africa Gandhi ran up against a kind of Hindu nationalism and extremism, one that sanctioned terrorism and, indeed, led to the assassination in London of the india Office official Sir William Curzon-Wylie on 1 July 1909. On his return journey to South Africa he wrote his most extensive political commentary Hind Swaraj by way of reply to the kind of ideas V D Savarkar was promoting, the man who had been the inspiration behind the assassination. Gandhi ever afterwards was embattled with Hindu nationalism and often its accompaniment, terrorism. Hindu nationalism was expressed through the Hindu Mahasabha, set up in 1916, and the RSS in 1925, its doctrinaire ideological exponent. But an even greater threat in Gandhi’s eyes came from terrorism, actively expressed at that time in Bengal, Maharashtra and the Punjab. Leading India in a different direction was probably his greatest political achievement.

I Indian National Congress

The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885, the idea not of an Indian but of Allan Octavian Hume, who had retired from the Indian Civil Service in 1882. His idea was to improve relations between Indians and the Raj and it would meet once a year. It received the approval of the Viceroy. However within a few years the Government had changed its attitude to antagonism.

18

The partition in 1905 of Bengal by the Viceroy Lord Curzon roused the Indians and led to a boycott of British goods and some acts of terrorism. By 1907 Congress was deeply divided between the Moderates (the majority) and the Extremists. Indian Muslims tended to look to the British for protection of their rights but the Muslim League, which had formed in 1906, by 1913 had declared its aim to be self-government for India and by 1916 the Congress and League had signed a pact. In 1919 the repressive Rowlatt Bills were passed which led Gandhi to call for a satyagraha for their repeal. It was to start with a one day national strike or hartal but a few days later troops under General Dyer fired on a peaceful demonstration in Amritsar leading to nearly 400 deaths. The following year, with Gandhi now the leading figure in Congress, he called for non-cooperation with the Raj including the law courts, civil service and the legislative councils. However when policemen were murdered by peasants purporting to be Congress supporters in Chauri Chaura in February 1922 Gandhi called off the satyagraha.For the next 25 years Congress led the Independence movement although the Muslim League gradually drew apart from the INC until by 1940 the two-nation theory of Hindu/Muslim culture was accepted by the Muslim League. Thus Congress led a divided India into Independence on 15 August 1947.

J Jinnah, M A

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) like Gandhi was a Gujarati who also qualified as a barrister in London, but at Lincoln’s Inn. He left London in 1897 and established a successful practice in Bombay. He joined the Indian National Congress and then in 1913 joined the Muslim League. Briefly he seemed to be the coming man in Indian nationalist politics. These two organisations co-operated and drew up a common platform in the Lucknow Pact of 1916 which included a separate electorate for the Indian Muslims. But Gandhi displaced Jinnah at the Nagpur Congress of 1920. It was in a way a clash between Gandhi’s former self, that highly acculturated Englishman, and the present Jinnah, still impeccably attired in western dress, English speaking, another London trained lawyer. In attacking Jinnah, Gandhi was implicitly seeking to subvert control of the Congress by its anglicised elite. Jinnah’s revenge was fatal. He adopted a Muslim communal approach to match what he saw as Gandhi’s Hindu and religious leadership of Congress. He sought to safeguard the interest of Muslims at the Round Table Conference in 1931. He then decided to stay in Britain and carry on his legal career but was tempted back for the provincial elections under a new constitution. The League only achieved about 5% of the Muslim votes and Congress did not need to form coalitions. Jinnah became increasingly antagonistic to Gandhi who, he imagined, wanted to establish a Hindu Raj. He blamed the Viceroy and Governors for not using special powers to protect the Muslims in Congress-governed provinces. On the outbreak of war the Congress ministries resigned

19

in protest against India’s participation in the war and Jinnah rejoiced. He then began to develop the two-nation idea claiming that Hindus and Muslims were so different that Muslims required their own areas in the north-west and the east. This idea gained in popularity with the Muslims although some envisioned a secular state while others wanted a religious state. Jinnah himself was not strict in religious observance and when he knew he was dying he affirmed the need for a version of Indian secularism in the new state, one which would extend tolerance to all faiths. But it was as a Muslim state that Pakistan became into being on India’s partition in 1947.

__________________________________________________

Susan Denton-BrownSusan Denton-Brown who was Chairperson of the Gandhi Foundation in 2009 died on 28 January 2014. Her career was teaching Religious Studies in schools. From 2010 she was Chair of the British Friends of Neve Shalom W a h a t a l S a l a m ( h t t p : / /www.oasisofpeaceuk.org/), a village where Arabs and Jews live together peacefully and the children are educated in both languages.

Current Chair of the GF, Mark Hoda, recalls her work preparing a pack on Gandhi for use in schools:

Susan was rightly very proud of this piece of work, which she researched and wrote at Oxford University, through a Farmington Fellowship.

The pack can be accessed at www.gandhiserve.org/e/dls/teaching-gandhi.pdf This is what the resources section on our website says about it:

A free educational resource pack on Gandhi, designed for school teachers (UK KS3&4), is available in the form of an Adobe PDF file by emailing farmington@hmc.ox.ac.uk and quoting ref. TT186.Written by Susan Denton-Brown, previous Chair of The Gandhi Foundation executive committee, and previously Head of Religious Studies at Tanbridge House School in West Sussex, the resource pack includes six modules which focus on the following aspects of Gandhi’s life and work:1. Identity2. Non-violent protest3. Conflict transformation and mediation4. Equity in community5. Environmental issues6. Exploring spirituality

20

Each module suggests relevant clips from the movie Gandhi by Richard Attenborough, and then presents a series of exercises for groups and the whole class. Susan also worked with my father and Father Joe Collela to roll out "Dealing With Conflict" teaching packs based on her work with the Neve Shalon project to all schools in this country – www.history.org.uk/resources/secondary_news_168.html My personal memories of Susan will be that she worked tirelessly and passionately to teach children about nonviolent conflict resolution through both her career and her voluntary work. She was a selfless person with a huge, warm heart, and her hospitality was unrivalled ! Here is a personal reflection by Trudy Lewis:I first met Susan at ‘A day of reflection’ event entitled ‘An Emerging Global Spirituality’ hosted by Ishpriya Mataji in Bexhill on the south coast in 2007. Susan introduced herself to myself and my husband Trevor and told us about her connection with the Gandhi Foundation. She immediately struck me as energetic and enthusiastic and I was pleased to have made her acquaintance. I had the pleasure of getting to know her better at the GF Summer Gathering that summer in Lickey Hills in Birmingham where she led the morning sessions. She talked about her time spent in Israel living in a unique community which included both Jews and Palestinians who were working towards peace. The work there was about building bridges between communities and conflict resolution. Susan’s life had not been easy. She spoke candidly about her own losses and struggles and what she had learnt. Through resilience and determination she had overcome many challenges and I admired her for her courage and fortitude. The more I knew her and experienced her wisdom and great spiritual depth the more inspirational she became. Susan had a special talent for knowing just what the right thing to do or say was at any one time, which I think was a gift. She was also able to get under the skin of people and situations with amazing ease and smooth conflicts and potential conflicts using her piercing intelligence and great wisdom. Aware of her own spiritual depth and the potential depth within others she always looked for what was best in everyone. On more than one occasion, by talking things through in just the right way, she was able to deal with the tricky situations with sensitivity and justice which resulted in a good resolution for all concerned. Always authentic, she was equally adept at communicating with children, who loved her. Enormously capable, she was often willing and able to take on any leadership role which was thrust upon her with energy and skill, as she did one year with the Summer Gathering.

To me personally she was a special friend and we had many long and deep conversations. She talked with delight about the term she spent as a postgraduate at Oxford University eating at the high table with the dons. She was subsequently very helpful to our daughter Natasha, reading and advising

21

her on her personal statement and conducting mock interviews on the phone. When Natasha was offered a place at Oxford we all felt Susan’s influence and immense gratitude for her help.

There are many adjectives I could use to describe Susan – capable, fiercely intelligent, loving, spiritually deep, a force to be reckoned with and, in essence, an immensely gifted human being.

During one of our last conversations, before she was diagnosed with cancer I believe, she knew she was seriously unwell. She told me she didn’t think she had ‘long in this world’ and that the next thing I would hear of her is that Stuart, her son, would inform us that she was in a nursing home. It happened just like this and I am very pleased I was able to visit her there and see her for one last time.

It was a privilege to know this rare and special lady and I will treasure my memories of her. I feel sure her lasting effect will be her wisdom and compassion which has affected all of us who have tread this spiritual path with her. Her memory and influence lives on as we take this with us on our own journeys.

And from Denise Moll:

This will be more of a personal tribute than ‘formal’. I first met Susan in the 1990s through The Gandhi Foundation and when she was working on a Gandhian project, studying at Oxford University for a year having won an Award to do so. I was immediately impressed by her dedication, thoroughness in all she did, her great Spirit within and her warmth. Quite quickly we became good friends, recognising ourselves as “soul sisters”. When Susan finished her study I went to her Graduation, along with colleagues from the British Friends of Neve Shalom, and her great friend Rob, and heard her Presentation which was awe-inspiring in its reaching out to young people encouraging the practice of Gandhian principles. We shared delight – as well as frustrations at times – in the Gandhi Foundation, and it was with relief and joy that when I ceased to become its Secretary after 6 years, Susan became Chair of the Executive Committee. She threw herself in wholeheartedly, as was her wont, visited Kingsley Hall (from Horsham) regularly and did many jobs and tasks that were extra to her remit as Chair. Susan would not slow down, though many of us observed the toll this was taking on her.

We had several happy visits to each other’s homes – adding to her gifts Susan was an excellent cook and a gardener too. And we walked, and talked, and rested in each other’s company. I hold a Circle Gathering annually, and Susan was a founder member – 6 of us sit round a candle sharing our spiritual lives over the past year…… We draw strength from each other in this way and Susan was a valued part of it. She said in a card “….. I am finding it easier to meditate again now. The effects of the chemotherapy

22

made it difficult….. thank you for the wonderful Circle time. I found what the others said to be very inspiring and that encourages me to do more deeper work myself…”

I shan’t forget you Susan, and now you are at peace on your “next stage” I can only rejoice in that for you, and send loving wishes. I thank God for the human being you were.

______________________________________________________

The Gandhi FoundationCharity number 292629

The Foundation exists to spread knowledge and understanding of the life and work of Mohandas K Gandhi (1869-1948). Our most important aim is to demonstrate the continuing relevance of his insights and actions for all of us.

Founder President: Richard AttenboroughPresident: Bhikhu Parekh

Patrons: Godric Bader, Navnit Dholakia, Denis Halliday, Eirwen Harbottle,Martin Polden, Diana Schumacher, Mark Tully

Members of Executive Committee: Twisha Chandra, Antony Copley, Shaheen Choudhury-Westcombe, Graham Davey, Omar Hayat, Mark Hoda (Chair),

Trevor Lewis, George Paxton, Prem Prakash, John RowleyYou can become a Friend of the Gandhi Foundation for a minimum subscription of £12, or a concession rate of £7, or be a Life Friend for a donation of £200. As a Friend you will receive the quarterly newsletter The Gandhi Way, and notices of events organised by the Foundation. Subscriptions to the Editor (address at bottom).

General inquiries tocontact@gandhifoundation.org

or Tel: 0845 313 8419www.gandhifoundation.org

Registered office: Kingsley Hall, Powis Road, Bromley-By-Bow, London E3 3HJ_____________________________________________________

The Gandhi WayArticles, book reviews and letters of a specifically or broadly Gandhian nature will gladly be received by the Editor. Maximum length 2000 words.

George Paxton, 87 Barrington Drive, Glasgow G4 9ESTel: 0141 339 6917; email: gpaxton@phonecoop.coop

The deadline for the next issue is the end of April 2014

Printed on recycled paper using vegetable based inks and 100% renewable energy by www.hillingdongreenprint.co.uk

Tel: 020 8868 7852

23

Multi Faith Celebration 30 January 2014

About thirty friends of the Gandhi Foundation met in Committee Room 1 of the House of Lords to commemorate the anniversary of Gandhi’s assassination in 1948 and to learn more about the common ground of the major world religions. This was disappointingly fewer than the fifty or so who had booked places. It was mistrust, misunderstanding and hatred that led to Gandhi’s death at the hands of a Hindu fanatic and the event has been held almost annually in the hope of our becoming better equipped to promote mutual respect in our present multi-cultural society.

For the first time, the Celebration was devoted to a single talk and our speaker was Dr Rex Andrews, Quaker and academic, who has recently written the book, God in a Nutshell. In it, Gandhi is quoted frequently and Rex said that while he recognised that Gandhi had human failings, his life was still a source of inspiration. The idea of the purpose of life being a constant search for Truth led Rex to seek the ‘highest common factor’ of all religions, agnosticism and atheism. He wrestled with the question, ‘Did God create us or is God a construct of human thought and imagination?’ and came to the conclusion that both are true. The idea of God as a kind of power was a common thread linking world religions – we are dependent on that power but also energised by it. The human response is to be seen in scientists’ revelation of the natural world, in the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, and in the strength of religious belief and practice.

Rex illustrated his points with Gandhi quotes. God is both Truth and, to us, a total mystery. He likened our understanding of God to the understanding a fly on the arm of a human being has of the whole person it is visiting. The experience of ploughing through the hairs on the skin is valid but the fly knows nothing of the physiology, the mental processes and the spiritual awareness of its host.

Rex’s conclusions were, firstly, that recognising that we see only a fragment of the Truth should lead us to have natural respect for those followers of other religions who may be seeing Truth from a different aspect. Secondly, we should test every new (and old) idea in the light of both reason and experience no matter what its source. Finally, trying to practise the Golden Rule requires both self-knowledge and empathy with the other person. All three conclusions clearly rule out any use of violence.

Rex answered the varied questions that his talk had prompted. Our President, Lord Bhikhu Parekh, was unwilling to risk prison by allowing the House of Lords premises to be used for commercial purposes so Rex was unable to sell copies of his book but he left his audience stimulated by his thinking and ideas. Graham Davey

24